Dear Mr. Li, experts,
we provided you with the draft of the technical comparison document. A lot of time elapsed and now you don't consider it realistic anymore to do this joint work. We regret your resistance. The consequence would be wasting the time of the group at the meeting with what we were supposed to do in advance.
Please reconsider your answer and the time delay caused by you with it.
The document attached to your last email by mistake I guess was an old collection of values. The more comprehensive test scenario document is APC-1993r2, attached to this email. It will be provided as document AVD-2059 at the next meeting.
Best Wishes Gero Baese
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Adam Li [mailto:adamli@icsl.ucla.edu] Gesendet am: Donnerstag, 22. Februar 2001 11:55 An: Baese Gero; ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM Cc: Tao Tian; Jay Fahlen; John D. Villasenor; Barry Aronson; Paul E. Jones; Jeong-Hoon Park; So Youg Kim; Yung Lyul Lee Betreff: RE: Video codec for H.323 Annex I
Mr. Baese, experts,
For the testing condition document, I believe we have settled on most of the issues. So here is the testing document, and please take a look and let me know if there is anything else that we need to discuss.
About the feature comparison document, I suggest that we both draft documents for the point to point comparisons with the technical reasoning. From the current schedule situation, it seems that it is more realistic for us to submit two independent documents. We can go over them at the meeting, and combine them then if necessary.
Regards,
Adam
Adam H. Li Image Communication Lab (310) 825-5178 (Lab) University of California, Los Angeles (310) 825-7928 (Fax)
Dear Mr. Baese, experts,
After much discussion here on the reflector, I thought Mr. Baese had agreed on the following two points:
(1) The simulation will be performed using H.263 Profile 3 and Profile 4.
(2) For the benchmark case (without proposed protection) that both of the proposal are compared to, the Annex K/V in Profile 3/4 of H.263 will be used so that the packets fits in the MTU of the channel.
However, neither of these are incorporated in APC-1993r2 Mr. Baese just resent. Those conditions are in the document I sent earlier (which combines APC-1906 and APC-1993), and I haven't heard from Mr. Baese any technical objection on the detail of that document. So our document may be a better base for the combined testing condition document.
On the second document for feature comparison, at this time, both sides should submit *individual* documents detail the views with technical analysis. From the way that the discussion on the testing condition goes, realistically there is little chance that an agreed feature comparison document can be completed within 3 days to meet the deadline. So submitting two individual documents would be a practical solution at this time.
On the finger pointing in discussion, I have no interest to participate.
Have a good day.
Adam Li
---------- Adam H. Li Image Communication Lab (310) 825-5178 (Lab) University of California, Los Angeles (310) 825-7928 (Fax)
-----Original Message----- From: Baese Gero [mailto:Gero.X.Baese@mchp.siemens.de] Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 5:05 AM To: 'Adam Li'; ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM Subject: AW: Video codec for H.323 Annex I
Dear Mr. Li, experts,
we provided you with the draft of the technical comparison document. A lot of time elapsed and now you don't consider it realistic anymore to do this joint work. We regret your resistance. The consequence would be wasting the time of the group at the meeting with what we were supposed to do in advance.
Please reconsider your answer and the time delay caused by you with it.
The document attached to your last email by mistake I guess was an old collection of values. The more comprehensive test scenario document is APC-1993r2, attached to this email. It will be provided as document AVD-2059 at the next meeting.
Best Wishes Gero Baese
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Adam Li [mailto:adamli@icsl.ucla.edu] Gesendet am: Donnerstag, 22. Februar 2001 11:55 An: Baese Gero; ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.INTEL.COM Cc: Tao Tian; Jay Fahlen; John D. Villasenor; Barry Aronson; Paul E. Jones; Jeong-Hoon Park; So Youg Kim; Yung Lyul Lee Betreff: RE: Video codec for H.323 Annex I
Mr. Baese, experts,
For the testing condition document, I believe we have settled on most of the issues. So here is the testing document, and please take a look and let me know if there is anything else that we need to discuss.
About the feature comparison document, I suggest that we both draft documents for the point to point comparisons with the technical reasoning. From the current schedule situation, it seems that it is more realistic for us to submit two independent documents. We can go over them at the meeting, and combine them then if necessary.
Regards,
Adam
Adam H. Li Image Communication Lab (310) 825-5178 (Lab) University of California, Los Angeles (310) 825-7928 (Fax)
participants (2)
-
Adam Li -
Baese Gero